Hernandez-Dominguez v. Raycraft et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______
GUILLERMO HERNANDEZ-
DOMINGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN RAYCRAFT et al.,
Respondents.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:26-cv-1612
Honorable Jane M. Beckering
OPINION
Petitioner, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainee currently
detained at the North Lake Processing Center located in Baldwin, Lake County, Michigan, initiated
this action by filing a counseled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(Pet., ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court will conditionally grant Petitioner’s petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Discussion
I. 	Procedural History
In Petitioner’s § 2241 petition, he challenges the constitutionality of his current detention
following an order issued by the Detroit Immigration Court denying him bond, and asks the Court
to, inter alia, issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ordering Respondents to
release Petitioner or provide Petitioner with a bond hearing where the government bears the burden
of proof by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight risk or danger to the
Case 1:26-cv-01612-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/04/26 Page 1
of 4

2
community. (Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.15.)1 In an Order entered on May 19, 2026, the Court
directed Respondents to show cause, within three business days, why the writ of habeas corpus
should not be granted. (Order, ECF No. 5.) Respondents filed their response on May 20, 2026,
(Resp., ECF No. 6), and Petitioner filed his reply on May 21, 2026, (ECF No. 7).
II. 	Factual Background
Petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States seventeen years ago. (Pet.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.5.) In February 2026, Petitioner was arrested by ICE. (Id., PageID.6.)
On March 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition challenging his initial detention
without 	a 	bond 	hearing 	in 	Hernandez-Dominguez 	v. 	Raycraft 	(Hernandez-Dominguez 	I),
No. 1:26-cv-696 (W.D. Mich.). In Hernandez-Dominguez I, the Court conditionally granted
Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ordering
Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) within five
business days of the date of the Court’s Opinion and Judgment or, in the alternative, immediately
release Petitioner from custody. Op. & Jud., Hernandez-Dominguez I, (W.D. Apr. 2, 2026), (ECF
Nos. 14, 15).
On April 6 2026, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to § 1226(a). (Pet., ECF No.
1, PageID.6.) At the conclusion of the bond hearing, the immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s
request for bond because Petitioner “has not established he does not present a substantial flight
risk. [Petitioner] did not establish a probable path to obtain lawful U.S. immigration status so as to
1 In addition to filing the § 2241 petition, Petitioner also filed a motion for expedited review,
immediate release, or in the alternative, a constitutionally adequate bond hearing. (ECF No. 2.) As
set forth in this opinion, the Court will grant Petitioner’s § 2241 petition and order Respondents to
provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing or release Petitioner from custody. In light
of this, the entry of the Court’s opinion and corresponding judgment moots Petitioner’s pending
motions.
Case 1:26-cv-01612-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/04/26 Page 2
of 4

3
warrant his release on bond. Matter of R-A-V-P-, 27 I&N Dec. 803 (BIA 2020).” (Order of the IJ,
ECF No. 1-3, PageID.34.)
III. 	Analysis
Respondents argue that the Court should deny Petitioner’s § 2241 petition due to a lack of
jurisdiction and Petitioner’s failure to exhaust Petitioner’s administrative remedies, as well as on
the merits. The Court has fully addressed these issues and Respondents’ arguments in Soto-Medina
v. Lynch, 817 F. Supp. 3d 612 (W.D. Mich. 2026). Therefore, for the reasons set forth in Soto-
Medina, the Court will conditionally grant Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
IV. 	Other Claims and Other Forms of Relief
Because the Court will conditionally grant Petitioner’s § 2241 petition as set forth herein,
the Court does not address other claims and other requested relief in Petitioner’s § 2241 petition.
Conclusion
The Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner with an individualized bond
hearing before an immigration judge, at which time the government will have the burden to
demonstrate dangerousness or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence, within five business
days and with notice to the Parties as soon as practicable, no later than 24 hours prior to the
scheduled hearing, or, in the alternative, immediately release Petitioner from custody. The Court
will also order Respondents to file a status report within six business days of the date of this Court’s
Opinion and Judgment to certify compliance with this Opinion and the corresponding Judgment.
The status report shall include if and when the bond hearing occurred, if bond was granted or
Case 1:26-cv-01612-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/04/26 Page 3
of 4

4
denied, and if bond was granted, the conditions of the bond, or if bond was denied, the reasons for
the denial.
Dated: 	June 4, 2026 	/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Jane M. Beckering
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01612-JMB-RSK ECF No. 8, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/04/26 Page 4
of 4